About your Search

20121118
20121118
STATION
FOXNEWS 15
WBAL (NBC) 6
WRC (NBC) 6
MSNBCW 5
CNN 4
CNNW 4
WTTG 4
KNTV (NBC) 3
MSNBC 3
WJLA (ABC) 3
KGO (ABC) 2
KPIX (CBS) 2
KQED (PBS) 2
WMAR (ABC) 2
WUSA (CBS) 2
( more )
LANGUAGE
English 82
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 82 (some duplicates have been removed)
parts of the community? >> but does this, would this give-- what does it mean for, say, susan rice and the administration then? is this, does this help them politically by shielding them or does petraeus here saying i thought it was a terrorist attack, does that mean this puts, for example, susan rice's statements more up to scrutiny? >> well, i think answers the fundamental question, did they deliberately mislead on this case for political reasons because they were driving the narrative that al-qaeda had been decimated and the war, war was receding or a question of incompetence. neither of those two things is good for the administration although it's after the election, so, they can get the consequences. >> let's take a look at the president talking about susan rice, the u.n. ambassador who many think he will nominate to succeed hillary clinton as secretary of state. >> for them to go after the u.n. ambassador, who had nothing to do with benghazi, and was simply making a presentation based on intelligence that she had received and to besmirch her reputation is outrageous. >> paul:
with what we've been told the cia had been telling susan rice? >> i think the real problem for general petraeus in this story is that it not only does not mesh with what the white house was saying, it doesn't mesh with what we're told general petraeus said in the immediate aftermath, where he is said to have talked about a spontaneous flash mob. >> to members of congress. >> to members of congress behind closed doors as well and this is the problem. it's not only that we know that that's not true now, it's that at the time there were a lot of other indications that indicate that was not true, denied by the libyan prime minister, the cia station chief called it an act of terror. we had the fbi and i believe the national center for counterterrorism also giving briefings. >> paul: that's right. >> saying this. why was general petraeus's testimony then so at odds with other parts of the community? >> but does this, would this give-- what does it mean for, say, susan rice and the administration then? is this, does this help them politically by shielding them or does petraeus here saying i t
lindsey graham giving his view of ambassador susan rice and her role in the administration spin on the benghazi terror attacks and the president's reactions to those statements at his first news conference since being reelected. mr. obama, defending ms. rice, but his defense has actually added more to the controversy. senator graham reacted to the president by saying, mr. president, don't think for one minute i don't hold you responsible for benghazi, i think you failed as commander-in-chief before, during and after the attack. so much to get to first on this, jim, the showdown between the two senators, graham and mccain and the president. abc's terry moran called it an obama smackdown. "the washington post" john mccain's benghazi, and some say it's about mccain being bitter about losing to obama four years ago. >> i think five names and a conflagration, and number one petraeus and broadwell and number two, benghazi, benghazi, petraeus, broadwell, military ethics, mccain obama reduction, and fifth, the susan rice story, which life imitates art. if you go back and watch the movie
our power as far as susan rice is concerned. >> i don't trust her. and the reason i don't trust her is because i think she knew better, and if she didn't know better, she shouldn't be the voice of america. >> key republican senators are trying to block susan race from becoming secretary of state. ms. rice is currently the permanent representative to the united nations for the u.s. she has not yet been officially nominated for the state department job to replace hillary clinton who intends to resign probably. rice is rumored to be underactive and positive consideration. but republicans and some democrats have been angry with ms. rice for saying that the attack in benghazi that left four americans dead was spontaneous and not preplanned. >> what our assessment is as of the present is, in fact, it began spontaneously in benghazi as a reaction to what had transpired some hours earlier in cairo where, of course, as you know, there was a violent protest outside of our embassy, sparked by this hateful video. we do not have information at present that leads to us conclude that this was prem
the politicization of a public statement that was put out by the entire intelligence committee, which susan rice on the 16th, who was asked to go before the people and use that statement, did. i have read every one of the five interviews she did that day. she was within the context of that statement. and for this, she has been pillaried for two months. i don't understand it. it has to stop. if it continues, it's going to set up once again a partisan divide in these -- the house and the senate, which congressman rogers and i have tried to overcome and have overcome with some success with respect to the intelligence committees. >> congressman rogers, to my understanding, talking to government officials, is that what susan rice said on "meet the press" five days after the attack and other programs as well, was very similar to what then director petraeus said privately on september 14, that there appeared to be a terrorist element to it but that it appeared first to be spontaneous but it became a terrorist attack, and that that was his belief. so were they not speaking basically in the same way? >>
. >> there are legitimate questions to ask about susan rice and the timeline, the talking points but nobody died because of that. if it was a coverup it was unsuccessful because it broke down two days later. thisthis is the key question. because there had been dozens of warnings, two attacks including an ied which exploded outside the consulate. the red cross pulled out of benghazi, the british embassador pulled out of benghazi, and that is a question -- we also know in august, a month before the attack, that embassador stevens and a lot of top diplomatic security sent messages saying there are extremist groups and we don't have enough security. that's the question. that's what could have saved lives. why was the decision not made to beef up security or simply say to the embassador, like other countries, let's pull out because it's too dangerous. >> speaking of susan rice and general petraeus and his testimony saying someone took out the references to al-qaeda and called those attackers extremist? it seems the president could be backing susan rice for secretary of state. "washington post," a strong to s
this happen again. >>>> why would susan rice not gt our vote? i don't trust her. defending susan rice. >> if senator mccain and senator want to go after somebody, they should go aft me. there are no barriers to dn and beginning to work through this process. >> as the fiscal cliff looms, is deal in the works? mitt romney explains why he .ost >> the president's campaign was certain membersrs of his collision, give them extraordinary financial gifts , and workovernment very aggressivelely to turn them vote.e. captioned by thehe national captioning institut --www.ncicicap.org-- >> i just don't ow where to begin this week. we talk about republicacan charges of a cover-up with regard to the fatatal attack in benghazi? do we talk about sexual liaison and national security? about israel dealza, possibility of a a the fiscal cliff? let's starwith the sex. [laughter] the d director of the cia resigs fbi uncovers e-mails revealing that general david extramaritalan with s biographer, broadwewell, a married moer of two. about unlimited access. general petraeus was set to testifabout the benghazi h
very critical of u.n. ambassador susan rice. you were critical in tv appearances right after the attack on september 11th. let's listen to that. >> either ambassador rice was deliberately misleading the american people or she showed and demonstrated such a lack of knowledge and sophistication that she shouldn't hold that position anymore. >> now, during friday's hearing, david petraeus, and we'll get to other incidents -- other news with david petraeus later, but david petraeus basically said he knew it was a terrorist attack and that those points were taken out of susan rice's talking points. so do you -- do you feel differently about susan rice now? >> no, first of all, as far as general petraeus, what was clear was that the intelligence community had this right, and they put together talking points, and somewhere after it left the intelligence community, some way in the administration there was language taken out. susan rice, i would hope if she's going to go on national television, is going to rely on more than unclassified talking points. she has -- >> but if the information wasn't
were taken out of susan rice's talking points, so do you -- do you feel differently about susan rice now? >> no, first of all, as far as general petraeus, what was clear was that the intelligence community had this right and they put together talking points and somewhere after it left the intelligence community, some way in the administration there was language taken out. susan rice, i would hope if she's going to go on national television is going to rely on more than unclassified talking points. she has -- >> but if the information wasn't in the talking points, what is she supposed to do. >> well, as u.n. ambassador she had access to all the classified information from the state department. she certainly could have gotten a classified briefing and would have sat dowational security council and known that those talking points had been watered down and could have -- she left a clear impression this was a spontaneous demonstration based on the video and as president obama said, don't blame susan rice because she had nothing to do with benghazi then why did they send her out as the rep
went so hard after susan rice, having just come out of an election in which republicans lost votes among single women in particular and did badly with minorities, so to go off the susan rice, an african-american female, the white house saying what are they doing? chris: does it look that way as an observer, sexist? >> i wonder if something else is going on, whether lindsey graham wants to do something on immigration reform or is trying to cover his back on benghazi or there are politicks to play but the white house can't understand the opportunity. chris: a lot of motives going on there. >> chris, i live in brooklyn and bringing you two updates for the sandy recovery on the effort back home. chris: good for you. >> good news and bad news. good news, the motorized wheelchairs are beginning to work again and old people's wheelchairs are powered by electricity and when the power goes out they literally can't move around. the power is beginning to come on in some of the high-rise buildings so people are able to recharge their wheelchair for really the first time in weeks and able to mo
that terrorists were behind the attack, that the administration watered down the talking points, that susan rice ended up using because they didn't want to tip off the terrorist they were on to them. let me start first with you, senator chambliss, because you were in a closed door hearing with petraeus. one, did he say it? if so, do you believe it? >> petraeus did not say that in those words, chris. i did not interpret anything he said to be that. general petraeus number one is obviously a great man and a great leader. both from the military standpoint and with role at the c.i.a. what he did say is that day one, we knew it was a terrorist attack. there was no question about it. you don't bring automatic weapons and rpgs and mortars to so-called demonstration. still are some questions that are yet to be answered about the planning of this. whether it was done over a period of time or whether it was truly a spontaneous reaction. there is no indication now that it was anything other than a planned attack. >> chris: do you have an understanding why the talking points changed over the course of the f
tragedy. but we have an explanation from petraeus for why susan rice said what she said. that is to say they deliberately obscured what they knew in order to avoid giving away too much to our adversaries. now you could say why did you need to do that? i'm not competent to say what advantage was gained there, but i'm not sure in the alternative what advantage anyone thinks the obama administration was going to get by misleading. the event happened. did anyone think the obama administration was trying to preserve some illusion that terrorists never would hit us as long as obama was president? we have been at war with terrorists 11 years and lost thousands of lives. i don't understand the point that graham is making, and the idea to question why did you put susan rice on the talk shows? administrations make decisions every week about who they will put out to repeat talking points. it doesn't really make much sense to me to be honest. >> to that end, then, amy, you have senator graham, other republicans, john mccain for one, they are calling for a special prosecutor. john harwood brings up
this happen again. >> why would susan rice not get our vote? i don't trust her. >> defending susan rice. >> senator mccain and senator graham want to go after some big, they should go after me. >> there are no barriers, they to sitting down and working through this process. >> as the fiscal cliff limbs, is there a deal in the works? mitt romney explains why he lost . >> the president's campaign was focused on his base coalition, giving extraordinary gifts from the government, working aggressively to turn them out to vote. captioned by the national captioning institute --www.ncicap.org-- >> i just don't know where to begin this week. do we talk about republican charges of a cover-up with regard to the fatal attack in benghazi? do we talk about sexual liaisons and e-mails and national security? to talk about israel and gaza. the possibility of a deal to avoid going off the fiscal clf? let's art th the sex. [laughter] general david petraeus had an affair with his biographer, paula broadwell, a married mother of two pit talk about unlimited access. general petraeus was set to testify as we
republicans want u.n. ambassador susan rice held accountable for comments she made days after the attack in libya. we will talk to adam smith who is defending ambassador rice. a lot of folks are still in desperate need after hurricane sandy. later in the show, we will show you how you can help with these efforts and about many other worthy causes as well. people have doubts about taking aspirin for pain. but they haven't experienced extra strength bayer advanced aspirin. in fact, in a recent survey, 95% of people who tried it agreed that it relieved their headache fast. visit fastreliefchallenge.com today for a special trial offer. can i still ship a gift in time r christmas? yeah, sure you can. great. where's your gift? uh... whew. [ male announcer ] break from the holiday stress. ship fedex express by december 22nd for christmas delivery. thor gets great rewards for his small business! your boa! [ garth ] thor's small business earns double miles on every purchase, every day! ahh, the new fabrics. put it on my spark card. ow. [ garth ] why settle for less? the spiked heels are working.
. listen to romney's conference calm about obama's gifts and mccain's gifts about obama ally susan rice. >> what the president, the president's campaign did was focus on certain members of his base coalition, give them extra financial gift from the government and then work very aggressively to turn them out to vote. >> susan rice should have known better and if she didn't know better she's not qualified. she should have known better. i will do everything in my power to block her from being the united states secretary of state. >> let's go after romney first in a way that he's calculating how he lost. you can give all kinds of reasons when you lose. when you spout the argument that the other guy bought all the interest groups, that seems to diminish not just the purchaser but the purchase. you're basically saying these people are up for grabs. you'll never get them again. >> exactly. talking about more than half the voting public as bribery victims or being duped. it's ridiculous and insulting. precisely to some of the grownups that republicans need to do better with. latinos were outrag
. now a new call for answers from susan rice herself. negotiating fiscal cliff. did nancy pelosi just draw a red line? today she's saying she won't sign off on any deal that does not increase taxes on the rich. >>> and president obama is dealing with all of this while in the midst of his trip through asia, including israel and gaza on the brink of war. >> we're going to have to see what kind of progress we can make in the next 24-36-48 hours. if we're serious about wantsing to resolve this situation and a create a genuine peace process it starts with no more missiles being fired into israel's territory. >> first off, we're in a developing story in the middle east. let's go now to stephanie gosk, who is in tel aviv with the latest. what's the tone on ground today? >> well you hear the president say that as long as rockets were dropping, it was going to be impossible to get a cease-fire here. and the rockets definitely keep on coming. and there have been attacks back and forth. a couple of volleys of rockets that came toward tel aviv. intercepted by the israeli missile defense system, i
the administration watered down the talking points susan rice ends up using because they didn't want to tip that he have terrorists that they were on this them. let me start with you, senator chamblis, you were in one of those hearings with david petraeus, did he say it and did you believe it. >> he did not say that in those words, chris and i did not interpret anything he said to be that. general petraeus, number one, is obviously a great man and great leader, both from a military standpoint and with, also, the role with the cia and what he did say is from day one we knew it was a terrorist attack. there was no question about it. you you don't bring automatic weapons and rpgs and mortars to a so-called demonstration. still, there are some questions that are yet to be answered about the planning of this. whether it was done over a period of time, or, whether it was truly a spontaneous reaction. there is no indication now that it was anything other than a planned attack. >> chris: do you have an understanding as to why the talking points changed over the course of that first week? the white house sa
's the point. >> reporter: republicans continued their attack on u.n. ambassador susan rice and her account in the days following the attack that expressed her role in an anti-muslim video. >> the stories he told re-enforced a political narrative helpful to the president. she was the most politically compliant person they could find. i don't know what she told, but i know the stories she told were miss leading. >> it was one of the most unfair attacks i have ever seen in washington in 34 years, susan rice was using the unclassifies talking points that were provided by the intelligence community. >> somewhere along the line those talk points changed. >> what i do know that every member of the intelligence community says the references to al qaeda were removed by somebody and they don't know who. >> reporter: but the administration denied claims of white house interference and says they made only a minor change. >> there's only one thing that was changed and i checked into this, i believe it to be absolute fact and it was the word consulate was changed to mission. >> reporter: and today lawma
. >> believe me, i'm the first to say i love a good sex scandal, but only if susan rice was involved, they would get to the bottom of that. >> what we're getting are these bits and pieces, self-serving leaks from aids, and others, and they still don't know. it's a hard story to report but we haven't shown much strain either. >> there are two things that work. one is david petraeus does have a press codery and he now has people anorthern mussily defending him. >> or not so anonymously in the case only sof columnists. >> in the case of sum. so you have him over here. how many witnesses before congress get to come and go without a picture? i mean that's the kind of bipartisan cooperation that could help with the fiscal cliff. but the other thing about the women is that, you know, we're dealing with a party planner with diplomatic immunity, you know, who seems to have gotten all kinds of, you know, generals courting her in a certain way because she raises funds for them. but this is a largerer than life person to cover. so you go there because she's a character. >> by the way york were r
nations, susan rice, said on a sunday talk show after the attack that it was a mob protesting an anti-muslim video and not a terror strike. republicans contend the obama administration wanted to downplay terrorism from the start. >> the issue is from what was released from cia headquarters on friday afternoon in a unclassified talking point memo to the point that it was changeed to the sunday morning talk shows. there is a gap of about 48 hours that we need to account for and understand why it was changeed. >> all of the intelligence community have told us is that initially they recognized there were extremists and terrorists involveed and thought it came from a protest, that it took them time to sort that out, that there was no political spin in this. >> reporter: the ci attacking points would have gone through numerous hands. the various intelligence agencies, the white house, the state department, the justice department before going out to lawmakers. in washington, molly hennenberg, fox news. >>> just ahead, details on president obama's historic weekend trip. plus, the commute to
of susan rice to be secretary of state. a lot of people in the administration say she is the odds-on favorite to replace hillary clinton because of her performance on television after it the benghazi attacks when she said it was the result of spontaneous demonstrations in ejim, and not-- and was not a terrorist attack. are you standing fast on that? >> well, she has a lot of explaining to do, and i'm curious why she has not are you puddated those remarks. on this show, the libyan national president, obviously, said it was al qaeda. bob, this goes back to the beginning, this light footprint policy of this presidency. after we helped the libbians oust gaddafi, they need a lot of help-- and they could pay for it, by the way, with an army, secure the borders, get rid of these militias -- it was in a country that was basically chaotic, and we did almost nothing. and then there became these reports from our embassy and other personnel about attacks on our embassy twice, both in april and in june. the assassination attempt on the british ambassador. the british closed their consulate. th
in 34 years susan rice was using the unclassified talking points which were provided by the intelligence community. they were a consensus report. >> i don't know what the democrats are trying hide because i don't know what any of them saying, they are saying the intelligence community signed off on talking points. they went to the administration. when they came back, key language was changed. >> reporter: specifically, republicans say we are learning that any reference to al-qaeda's involvement in the attack was omitted and ambassador rice used it on those talk shows five days after the attack. >> heather: the administration could tech any mean the white house the security council or other entities, is any one component coming under special scrutiny? >> as of today, mike rogers for the first time fipgering one point of the national security council the deputies' committee of the council. >> it went up to the deputies committee. what i found fascinating, my role here in my mind to say was there intelligence failure and how to prevent it from happening again. >> reporter: republicans are d
of focus on susan rice, the ambassador who came on the show who said this was a spontaneous attack, not something terror related. she did testify about that the real issue we'll tackle this morning was had she contradicted the view of the administration, saying she did believe it was terrorism all along, and even at the outset, talking points given by the intelligence community to susan rice, that have the elimination of any reference to the terror attack. >> will this set up a confirmation fight where we talk about susan rice and her possible nomination to lead the state department. >> if the president nominates her to be secretary of state, one of the questions that will come up for mccain and graham. when secretary of state condoleezza rice was nominated to be secretary of state, she said publicly all kinds of things about iraq, that they had weapons of mass destruction, that turned out to be absolutely wrong, and they felt despite that she should be supported. it is hypocritical to say susan rice should not be supported because somehow she was behind a coverup? one of the thing
obama will nominate susan rice to the post to replace hillary clinton. rice is currently the ambassador to the united nations. some republicans are upset over her handling of the deadly libya attacks. the "meet the press" moderator david gregory points out a similar issue out of the bush administration. >> condoleezza rice, also nominated to be secretary of state. she had, of course, publicly said all kinds of things about iraq, based on intelligence that turned out to be absolutely wrong. and yet they felt that despite that, she should be supported. so is it hypocritical for them to say susan rice should not be supported because somehow she was hunted a coverup? >> one of the republicans opposing rice, senator lindsey graham will, be on today's program. also on today, chair of the senate intelligence committee, democrat dianne feinstein. see it all right here at 10:30. >>> today, thousands are expected to march through washington over the controversial keystone pipeline. protesters trying to tell the president to continue saying no to the pipeline which would carry oil between canada a
that information, susan rice either didn't have it or use it when she went on the talk shows sunday. >> mike: one of the questions is, who is the they? are we closer to knowing that? did this go to the white house? was this done within the internal operations of the cia, at the state department? did you -- can you give us insight as to who it was who authorized and put their hands to the document and said we've got to scratch this out? >> no, sir we can't that. is a subtragedy to a larger tragedy that government can scrub out salient relevant information and we are no closer to knowing who did it and why. i suspect we know why. we are no closer to knowing who. i would say we've had two hearings now, one closed and one open. we have only just begun. i understand the need to have closed door hearings for classified information. but this is the same administration that wants to try terrorists in open court, with full discovery in front of the media in new york city. we are going to have open hearings as soon as we get back as soon as the new congress is convened. we are going to have open hearings t
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 82 (some duplicates have been removed)